initial study/mitigated negative declaration...the new facility would replace the existing fs 39,...

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for

Van Nuys Fire Station 39

W.O. E170094B

Bureau of Engineering City of Los Angeles Environmental Management Group

February, 2014

City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, 2014. Revision of “ICF International. 2013. Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Van Nuys Fire Station 39. Final. June. (ICF 00226.12.) Los Angeles, CA.”

Contents

List of Tables and Figures ......................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................... v

Page

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 A. Purpose of an Initial Study .................................................................................. 1 B. Document Format ............................................................................................... 1 C. CEQA Process ................................................................................................... 2

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3

A. Location .............................................................................................................. 3 B. Purpose .............................................................................................................. 3 C. Description ......................................................................................................... 4

III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................. 9 IV. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..................................................... 10

A. Aesthetics ......................................................................................................... 11 B. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................. 11 C. Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 11 D. Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 16 E. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 17 F. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 17 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................. 18 H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................... 21 I. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................. 24 J. Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 24 K. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 24 L. Noise ................................................................................................................. 25 M. Population and Housing ................................................................................... 29 N. Public Services ................................................................................................. 29 O. Recreation ........................................................................................................ 29 P. Transportation/Traffic ....................................................................................... 29 Q. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................... 30 R. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................. 31

Van Nuys Fire Station 39 TOC-i May 2013

V. MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................. 32 VI. NAME OF PREPARER ........................................................................................................... 34

A. Prepared by ................................................................................................................................ 34 B. Coordination/consultation with ................................................................................................. 35

VII. DETERMINATION – RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ..... 36 A. Summary .......................................................................................................... 36 B. Recommended Environmental Documentation ................................................ 36

VIII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 38

Appendices

APPENDIX A ........................................................ Environmental Screening Checklist APPENDIX B ............................................ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Report APPENDIX C ............................................................................... EDR Phase I Report APPENDIX D .......................................................... Natural History Museum Records APPENDIX E ....................... Transportation Assessment of Van Nuys Fire Station 39 APPENDIX F ........................................................ Fire Station 39 Acoustical Analysis

Van Nuys Fire Station 39 TOC-ii May 2013

Tables and Figures

Table Page

Table 1 Regional Construction and Operational Emissions ...................................... 12

Table 2 Localized Construction and Operational Emissions ..................................... 14

Table 3 Estimate of Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................... 20

Table 4 Noise from Fire Station Operations at Existing and Proposed Sites ............ 27

Table 5 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment .................................. 27

Table 6 Response of People and Effects on Structures from Continuous Vibration....................................................................................................... 28

Table 7 Trip Generation Forecasts ........................................................................... 30

Figure Page

Figure 1 Regional Location .......................................................................................... 5

Figure 2 Project Location ............................................................................................. 6

Van Nuys Fire Station 39 TOC-iii May 2013

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BAU business as usual Caltrans California Department of Transportation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Los Angeles CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc EMG Environmental Management Group FHWA Federal Highway Administration FS 39 Fire Station 39 FTA Federal Transit Administration IS initial study LAFD Los Angeles Fire Department LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LST Localized Significance Threshold NOX nitrogen oxides PM particulate matter PPV peak particle velocity RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ROG reactive organic gases RTP Regional Transportation Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center S02 sulfur dioxide SPL sound pressure level SRA Source Receptor Area SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminants

Van Nuys Fire Station 39 TOC-iv May 2013

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

INITIAL STUDY (Article I – City CEQA Guidelines)

Council District: 6 Date: February, 2014 Lead City Agency: Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Project Title: Van Nuys Fire Station 39 (W.O. E170094B) I. INTRODUCTION

An earlier version of this Initial Study was published in May of 2013. This revised Initial Study contains additional material, which is indicated by a line along the right margin.

A. Purpose of an Initial Study

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 for the purpose of providing decision-makers and the public with information regarding environmental effects of proposed projects; identifying means of avoiding environmental damage; and disclosing to the public the reasons behind a project’s approval, even if it leads to environmental damage. The City of Los Angeles (City) Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group (EMG) has determined that the proposed project is subject to CEQA and no exemptions apply. Therefore, preparation of an initial study (IS) is required. An initial study is a preliminary analysis conducted by the lead agency, in consultation with other agencies (responsible or trustee agencies, as applicable), to determine whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study concludes that the project, with mitigation, may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report should be prepared; otherwise the lead agency may adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. This initial study has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), and the L.A. CEQA Guidelines (1981, amended July 31, 2002).

Van Nuys Fire Station 39 Page 1 May 2013

INITIAL STUDY LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

B. Document Format

This initial study is organized into seven sections, as follows: Section I, Introduction: provides an overview of the project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Section II, Project Description: provides a description of the project location, project background, and project components. Section III, Existing Environment: provides a description of the existing environmental setting with focus on features of the environment that could potentially affect the proposed project or be affected by the proposed project. Section IV, Potential Environmental Effects: provides a detailed discussion of the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the screening checklist in Appendix A. Section V, Mitigation Measures: provides the mitigation measures that would be implemented to ensure that potential adverse impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level. Section VI, Name of Preparer: provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of this report and key personnel consulted. Section VII, Determination – Recommended Environmental Documentation: provides the recommended environmental documentation for the proposed project; and, Section VIII, References: provides a list of reference materials used during the preparation of this report.

C. CEQA Process

Once the adoption of a negative declaration (or mitigated negative declaration) has been proposed, a public comment period opens for no less than twenty (20) days or thirty (30) days if there is state agency involvement. The purpose of this comment period is to provide public agencies and the general public an opportunity to review the initial study and comment on the adequacy of the analysis and the findings of the lead agency regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. If a reviewer believes the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the reviewer should (1) identify the specific effect, (2) explain why it is believed the effect would occur, and (3) explain why it is believed the effect would be significant. Facts or expert opinion supported by facts should be provided as the basis of such comments.



After the close of the public review period, the Board of Public Works considers the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, together with any comments received during the public review process, and makes a recommendation to the City Council on whether to approve the project. One or more council committees may then review the proposal and documents and make its own recommendation to the full City Council. The City Council is the decision-making body and also considers the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, together with any comments received during the public review process, in the final decision to approve or disapprove the project. During the project approval process, persons and/or agencies may address either the Board of Public Works or the City Council regarding the project. Public notification of agenda items for the Board of Public Works, council committees, and City Council is posted 72 hours prior to the public meeting. The council agenda can be obtained by visiting the Council and Public Services Division of the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Suite 395; by calling 213/978-1047, 213/978-1048 or TDD/TTY 213/978-1055; or via the Internet at http://cityclerk.lacity.org/. If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within 5 days. The Notice of Determination will be posted by the County Clerk within 24 hours of receipt. This begins a 30-day statute of limitations on legal challenges to the approval under CEQA. The ability to challenge the approval in court may be limited to those persons who objected to the approval of the project, and to issues that were presented to the lead agency by any person, either orally or in writing, during the public comment period. As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services, and activities.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Location

The proposed project would be located on the 14600 block of Oxnard Street within the Van Nuys neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the proposed project. Figure 2 shows the location of the proposed Fire Station 39 (FS 39) as well as the location of the existing FS 39.

B. Purpose

The proposed project aims to:

• Accommodate current and anticipated demand for emergency services, which is expected to increase by 9.6% over the next decade, according to Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) projections;


http://cityclerk.lacity.org/


• Modernize emergency service facilities; • Maintain and improve emergency response times; and • Provide on-site parking for all on-duty personnel.

C. Description

The City of Los Angeles is proposing to construct a two-story, approximately 18,533-square-foot fire station on an approximately 1.19-acre site located on the corner of Oxnard Street and Vesper Avenue in Van Nuys. At present, the project site is a paved vacant lot. The new facility would replace the existing FS 39, which is approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the project site. The existing FS 39, located at 14415 Sylvan Street, is an approximately 14,000-square-foot building located adjacent to the Van Nuys Civic Center. The existing FS 39, which was constructed in 1939, serves an area of approximately 6 square miles and responds to approximately 35 to 40 emergency service requests per 24-hour period. During the summer, the number of daily emergency responses increases by approximately 10%. Following the development of the new FS 39, the building that currently houses FS 39 would be retained by the Department of General Services until its future use is determined. Therefore, because the future use of the existing FS 39 is uncertain at this time, the disposition of that building is not part of this project for the purposes of CEQA. Project Background The proposed project is funded by Proposition F, a ballot measure approved by Los Angeles voters in November of 2000. Proposition F authorized the issuance of $532.6 million in General Obligation Bonds to finance construction and rehabilitation of fire stations and animal shelters throughout the City. Although the proposed project was not initially programmed under Proposition F, the Los Angeles City Council approved the addition of FS 39 to the program in September of 2009; it would be funded with accrued savings and interest from other fire station projects under Proposition F. Project Elements The proposed project would be designed to meet Silver Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification standards. Specifically, it would involve the construction of a new FS 39 facility and may include the following elements:

• Berths for three fire engines, one ladder truck, two rescue ambulances, and one battalion chief command vehicle;

• Living quarters for on-duty personnel;


INITIAL STUDY LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF ENGINEERING Figure 1: Regional Location

Source: Google 2012.


INITIAL STUDY LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF ENGINEERING Figure 2: Project Location

Source: Google 2012.

Van Nuys Fire Station 39 Page 6 February 2014


• A fitness and wellness area; • Office space; • A conference room available for public use by appointment; and • An optional aboveground, 4,000-gallon diesel fuel storage tank.

The proposed project would accommodate 15 to 21 on-duty firefighter and rescue staff at any given time. The proposed project would include berths to house two rescue ambulances, which is one more than is housed at the existing FS 39. LAFD projects that the additional ambulance service would increase the number of responses to existing emergency service requests by 15%. The proposed FS 39 would operate on 24-hour shifts, with shift changes starting at 6:30 a.m. and finishing by approximately 8:00 a.m. on every third day. No civilian employees of LAFD would be housed at the new station. Approximately 40 parking spaces would be provided on-site to accommodate staff, emergency vehicles, and visitors. Additionally, 12 covered parking spaces intended for parking and storage of reserve apparatus would be included under the proposed project. Electrical outlets would be installed to ensure a continual power source. Fire engines would exit the facility onto Oxnard Street to the south and enter the site from the north from Aetna Street, avoiding the need to back into the fire engine berths from Oxnard Street. Paramedic and other rescue vehicles and visitor vehicles would exit to Vesper Avenue and enter from the same location. A wall, about 400 feet long and 6 to 8 feet tall would be constructed in the existing Oxnard Street public right of way, between the sidewalk on the south side of Oxnard Street and the abutting residential properties between Vesper Avenue and Cedros Avenue. The wall would end east of the existing driveway that provides access from Oxnard Street to 5945 Tiara Street. Construction Site Clearing

As previously stated, the proposed project site is an asphalt-paved lot and, with the exception of a couple of low concrete walls, devoid of structures. It is anticipated that approximately 700 cubic yards of debris from the demolition of asphalt and concrete would be generated during site clearing.

Excavation/Earthwork

Following site clearing, the project site would be graded to meet design specifications and to accommodate site drainage requirements. The site is expected to be graded such that the site elevation is similar to the adjacent streets. As part of the grading



process, soil would be balanced on-site to the extent possible, and the soil compacted to design specifications. Up to 1,700 cubic yards of soil and asphalt would be removed. The grading and excavation phases of the proposed project are expected to generate the most construction traffic and use the most equipment. Equipment during this phase would include the following:

• 1 loader, • 1 backhoe/loader, • 1 compactor/roller, • 1 water truck, and • Dump trucks for hauling.

In addition, 10 workers would be required.

Building Foundation and Pad Construction

Following grading, the building foundation and concrete pads for other elements of the fire station site would be constructed in accordance with the building code and design recommendations in the geotechnical plans. Foundations may include caissons or other foundation structures. There would also be excavation for placement of necessary utility lines. Building Structure

Once foundations are constructed, building construction would commence. The structure could include concrete block or cast-in-place construction. Once the two-story structure is erected, interior improvements would be made, including necessary ventilation and control equipment. Utilities would be connected as needed. This phase would also include erection of the perimeter concrete block wall, trash enclosures, a standard hose tower, an emergency power generator, an aboveground diesel fuel tank, and a flagpole.

Landscaping

Construction activities associated with this phase of work include the placement of landscaping materials in accordance with design specifications. Installation of irrigation systems to support site landscaping could be combined with the utility connection work previously described. Off-site improvements would include the placement of a sidewalk and other facilities needed to make the station public areas Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant and the wall along the south side of Oxnard Street. The analysis in this document assumes that, unless otherwise stated, the project will be designed, constructed and operated following all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances and formally adopted City standards including but not limited to:



• Los Angeles Municipal Code (Reference 21) • Bureau of Engineering Standard Plans (Reference 28) • Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Reference 1) • Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (Reference 2) • Additions and Amendments to the Standard Specifications for Public Works

Construction (Reference 27). III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The proposed project site is located in an urban setting surrounded by commercial and manufacturing businesses to the north and east, a Department of Water and Power building to the west, and single-family residences to the south. It lies within the Van Nuys-North Sherman Oaks Community Plan Area. The project site is bounded by Aetna Street to the north, Oxnard Street to the South, Vesper Avenue to the east, Cedros Avenue to the west, and would occupy the westernmost parcel on the block (14600 West Aetna Street) and a portion of the parcel immediately to the east (14614 West Aetna Street). With the exception of a low concrete wall located at the northwest corner of 14600 Aetna Street parcel, the project site is devoid of structures. The proposed project site lies within the Van Nuys quadrangle of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute series topographic map, and is approximately 700 feet above mean sea level. The proposed project site is not located within 1,000 yards of an Alquist-Priolo zone. However, the site is located in an area that is susceptible to liquefaction, as designated by the California Geological Survey. The site is located on a flat portion of the San Fernando Valley floor and would not be subject to mudflows or landslides. Consistency with Land Use Plans and Zoning Land Use Plans The project site lies within the Van Nuys-North Sherman Oaks Community Plan area. It is also designated as being part of a State Enterprise Zone, which provides tax, increased height and floor-area ratio allowances, and a reduction in parking requirements for development. The project site is designated CM-Commercial Manufacturing in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. Zoning The project site is designated CM, Commercial Manufacturing Zone. Public services, including fire stations, are expressly permitted on parcels designated as C2 commercial zones. C2 uses, in turn, are permitted within CM zones, provided they are in compliance with all other provisions of the zone. Traffic and Circulation



Aetna Street, which is a two-way local road without lane markings north of the project site, has on-street parking along the westbound side of the street. Vesper Avenue, which borders the project site on the east, is a local two-lane road with lane markings; it allows for parking on either side of the street. Both Aetna Street and Vesper Avenue would have ingress and egress points that serve the project site. Oxnard Street, which borders the project site on the south, is a five-lane road (two lanes in each direction and a block-long left-turn lane) with 2-hour street parking on the westbound side of the street and limited 2-hour street parking on the eastbound side of the street. Oxnard Street is classified as a Secondary Highway by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Secondary highways supplement the through-traffic-carrying characteristics of major highways. Standards for secondary highways include the following:

• 90-foot right-of-way • 10-foot sidewalk/parkway and 19-foot curb lane • Four full-time through lanes • All-day parking • One median left-turn lane

Reference: 36. (Fehr and Peers, 2012)

IV. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact as indicated by the checklist in Appendix A. A detailed discussion of the potential environmental effects follows.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry

Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance



A. Aesthetics Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause less-than-significant impacts with respect to aesthetics (please refer to Appendix A). The project would be compatible with the visual character of the area and would not obscure scenic views or generate excessive ambient light and glare.

B. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Initial screening determined that the proposed project would result in no impact (please refer to Appendix A).

C. Air Quality The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the basin is in nonattainment (i.e., O3, PM10, PM2.5 and Pb). The project would be subject to SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies were based, in part, on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the AQMP. The most recent AQMP adopted by SCAQMD incorporates SCAG’s 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. The 2012–2035 RTP projects that the population of the region will grow as approximately 1.5 million new households move to the area between now and 2035. As the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, SCAG addresses regional issues related to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. As part of its air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters. These chapters provide the basis for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP and are used in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and the consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RCPG and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with county and city general plans.1

The project site is designated as a Commercial Manufacturing Zone. Public services, including fire stations, are expressly permitted on parcels designated as C2 Commercial Manufacturing Zones. C2 uses, in turn, are permitted within Commercial Manufacturing Zones provided that they are in compliance with all other provisions of the zone. As such, the project would be consistent with the existing general plan, and growth projections would, therefore, be accounted for within AQMD attainment

1 SCAG serves as the federally designated MPO for the Southern California region.



forecasts. Project development would not conflict with any air quality management plan, and no impact would occur. Reference: 37 (Air Quality Report, 2012). Assumptions regarding construction phasing and equipment use were based on information received from the project applicant. A complete list of the construction equipment by phase, construction phase duration assumptions, and changes to modeling default values used in this analysis are included in the CalEEMod printout sheets, which are provided in the air quality and climate change appendix to this report. Among other assumptions, it was assumed that there would be 700 cubic yards of soil and pavement material that would be moved or compacted during the site preparation phase. Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 24 months, beginning in March 2014 and ending March 2016. The total magnitude, duration, and intensity of construction activity has a substantial effect on the quantity of construction emissions (and related pollutant concentrations) occurring at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions that are based on the expected construction scenario (i.e., a relatively large amount of construction activity occurring in a relatively intensive manner). The estimate of project emissions during construction is provided below in Table 1. As shown therein, construction-period emissions are not anticipated to exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. It is important to note, however, that construction contractors are still required to follow all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, such as SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings), among other rules.

Table 1: Regional Construction and Operational Emissions

Regional Emissions Estimate (pounds per day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Construction Phase Site Preparation 5 44 26 <1 7 3

Grading 3 26 16 <1 3 2

Building Construction 5 24 17 <1 2 2

Asphalt Paving 3 19 13 <1 2 2

Architectural Coats Application 43 3 2 <1 <1 <1

Maximum Emissions* 51 46 32 <1 7 4

SCAQMD Construction Thresholds (lbs/day) 75 100 550 150 150 55

Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No

Operations Emissions Source



Regional Emissions Estimate (pounds per day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Mobile** <1 1 6 <1 1 <1

Operations Emissions Totals 1 2 6 <1 1 <1

SCAQMD Operations Thresholds (lbs/day) 55 55 550 150 150 55


* Maximum daily emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, SO2 and PM2.5 would occur during periods of concurrent building construction, asphalt paving and architectural coatings application activity. ** Emissions related to emergency response vehicle activity not included. Source: ICF International, 2012; CalEEMod output sheets provided in air quality and climate change appendix.

With respect to the project’s operations-period emissions, it is important to note that the regional mobile-source emissions related to emergency response vehicles would occur regardless of project development. This new facility would simply allow the City to manage existing emergency response vehicle assets better. As such, “project-related” mobile-source emissions do not include emissions related to emergency response vehicle activity. The estimate of the project’s operations-period emissions is also provided in Table 1. As shown therein, operations-period emissions would also remain below SCAQMD significance thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. The CalEEMod model output and worksheets for calculating regional construction- and operations-period emissions are provided in the air quality and climate change appendix to this document. Local Construction and Operational Impacts The proposed project would contribute to localized air pollutant emissions during construction (short term) and project operations (long term). A discussion of the project’s localized potential construction- and operations-period air quality impacts is provided below. SCAQMD has developed a set of mass emissions rate look-up tables that can be used to evaluate localized impacts that may result from construction-period emissions. If the on-site emissions from proposed construction activities are below the Localized Significance Threshold (LST) emissions levels found in the LST mass rate look-up tables for the project site’s SRA, then project emissions would not have the potential to cause a significant localized air quality impact. As discussed previously, mass daily emissions during construction were compiled using



the CalEEMod emissions inventory model. However, only on-site construction emissions were considered for purposes of comparison with the LST mass rate look-up tables (consistent with SCAQMD LST guidelines, off-site delivery/haul truck activity, and employee trips were not considered in the evaluation of localized impacts). With respect to operations-period emissions, only area-source emissions occur on-site. Mobile-source and energy-generation emissions occur off-site. The estimates of project construction- and operations-period on-site mass emissions are presented in Table 2. As shown therein, construction and operations emissions would remain below SCAQMD significance thresholds. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Table 2: Localized Construction and Operational Emissions

Peak Daily Emissions (lbs/day) - Localized ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5

Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Site Prep 4 32 19 <1 3.8 2.7

Grading 3 26 15 <1 3.2 2.3

Building Construction 5 23 16 <1 1.6 1.6

Paving 3 19 12 <1 1.6 1.6

Architectural Coating 43 3 2 <1 0.3 0.3

SCAQMD Construction Thresholds (lbs/day) a

- 80 498 - 4 3


Peak Daily Emissions (lbs/day) - Localized

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5

Operational Emissions

Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

SCAQMD Operations Thresholds (lbs/day) a

- 80 498 - 1 1

Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No a Localized thresholds derived from SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold tables are based on the project location (SRA 7, East San Fernando Valley), the project area disturbed in any given day (1 acre), and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor (25 meters). Source: ICF International, 2012; CalEEMod output sheets provided in air quality and climate change appendix.

Reference: 37 (Air Quality Report, 2012).



SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and state Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier (see discussion above in 3[a]), the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants.2 In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the proposed project, presented earlier in Table 1, are less than all applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

As discussed above in 3(a), the proposed project is not anticipated to result in substantial pollutant concentrations. The greatest potential for toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during site grading activities. SCAQMD does not consider diesel-related cancer risks from construction equipment to be an issue because of the short-term nature of construction activities. Construction activities associated with the project would be sporadic, transitory, and short term in nature. The assessment of cancer risk is typically based on a 70-year exposure period. Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 70-year exposure period, construction of the project is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk to exposed persons because of the short-term nature of construction. As such, project-related toxic emission impacts during construction would not be significant.

With respect to long-term project operations, no meaningful source of TAC emissions would occupy the proposed project site. As such, there would be no potential for meaningful TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.


Explanation: According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting areas, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by SCAQMD as being associated with odors and therefore would not produce objectionable odors.

Odors resulting from construction of the proposed project are not likely to affect a substantial number of people because construction activities usually do not emit offensive odors. Potential odor emitters during construction activities include asphalt paving and the use of architectural coatings and solvents. SCAQMD Rules 1108 and

2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states “A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency.”



1113 limit the amount of reactive organic compounds (ROC) emissions from cutback asphalt and architectural coatings and solvents, respectively. Given mandatory compliance with SCAQMD rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would create a significant level of objectionable odors. As such, potential impacts during short-term construction would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.


D. Biological Resources

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) lists occurrences of 11 species or communities that are federally and/or state listed as endangered or threatened within the Van Nuys topographic quadrangle, as follows:

Species/Community Type Habitat Comments San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina)

Dry, sandy soils up to 2500 feet of elevation, San Fernando Valley to Orange and San Diego counties; extirpated from the Los Angeles Basin

No habitat on-site

Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus)

Coastal sage, shrub-steppe, and open grasslands

No habitat on-site

Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans)

Temperate woodlands and coniferous forest

No habitat on-site

Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)

Woodlands and forests with medium- to large-sized trees

No habitat on-site

Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii)

Foothills and coastal plains from the Los Angeles area to northern Baja California; location with abundant open vegetation such as chaparral or coastal sage

No habitat on-site

Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Floodplain habitats containing riverine cobbles, boulders, and sand

No habitat on-site

California Walnut Woodland

California chaparral and woodlands No habitat on-site

Davidson's bush-mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii)

Eastern San Fernando Valley along slopes and washes

No habitat on-site

Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)

Riparian communities No habitat on-site

Plummer's mariposa-lily (Calochortus plummerae)

Dry, rocky chaparral; yellow pine forest

No habitat on-site

Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) Ponds, lakes, streams, large rivers, slow-moving sloughs, and quiet waters

No habitat on-site

Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2012.



Based on the incompatible characteristics of the proposed project site and the habitats required by the species and communities listed above, initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact.

E. Cultural Resources

A paleontological resources record review was conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM). Surface deposits in the project area consist of young Quaternary alluvium, which typically do not contain fossil resources. The project area is underlain at an unknown depth, however, by older Quaternary alluvium, which may contain significant paleontological resources. No fossil localities have been recorded in the project area. The nearest fossil, LACM 3822, located about 0.5 mile to the northwest, produced fossils at depths of 75 to 100 feet below the ground surface. LACM 6208, which is located about 0.7 mile to the south, near Kester Avenue and Burbank Boulevard, yielded fossil specimens of extinct bison at a depth of 20 feet. About 1.2 miles south of the project site, LACM 3263 yielded fossil specimens of extinct horse at 14 feet below the ground surface.

Reference: 38. (McLeod).

An archaeological resources records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). Results of the records search indicate that there are no archeological resources within the project site or within a 1-mile radius of the project site. Also, the project area has been heavily disturbed by urban development, and there is little potential of encountering or affecting archaeological material.

The proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact (please refer to Appendix A).

F. Geology and Soils Initial screening determined that the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to geology and soils (please refer to Appendix A). The project site is located in a seismically active region and within an area identified by the California Geological Survey as being susceptible to liquefaction.

The proposed project will comply with the Uniform Building Code Chapter 18, Division 1, Section 1804.5 Liquefaction Potential and Soil Strength Loss. A Geotechnical Engineering Report was completed in 2013 that evaluates subsurface characteristics and provides geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project (Reference 47, City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, 2013).

Contaminated soil was encountered associated with a brick cesspit structure was encountered 25 feet below ground surface in the south east area of the proposed site (about 46 feet north of the north curb face of Oxnard Street and 50 feet west of the west curb face of Vesper Avenue). See Section IV.H for further details.



The primary geotechnical consideration with respect to the proposed project is the deep fills and potential liquefaction. Based on the analysis of data collected during the subsurface investigation, the fire station may be supported on shallow spread and/or continuous footing. Detailed geotechnical engineering recommendations addressing the surficial soils, site preparation, site earthwork, foundations, retaining walls and slabs-on-grade are presented in the report. Risks associated with geology and soils are less than significant and no extraordinary measures, which would constitute mitigation, are required.

G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The State CEQA Guidelines do not provide numeric or qualitative thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires GHGs emitted in California to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The Technical Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) suggests that, in absence of regulatory guidance or standards, lead agencies such as the City of Los Angeles must undertake project-by-project analyses consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice to ascertain project impacts under CEQA. As such, the proposed project is evaluated for consistency with the state goal of reducing GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020 (a 28.5% reduction), as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32.

AB 32 identified a 2020 target level for GHG emissions in California of 427 MMT of CO2e, which is approximately 28.5% less than the year 2020 BAU emissions estimate of 596 MMT CO2e. To achieve these GHG reductions there will have to be widespread reductions of GHG emissions across California. Some of those reductions will need to come in the form of changes in vehicle emissions and mileage standards, changes in the sources of electricity, and increases in energy efficiency by existing facilities. The remainder will need to come from requiring new facility development to have lower carbon intensity than BAU conditions. Therefore, this analysis uses a threshold of significance that is in conformance with the state’s goals.

On December 12, 2008, ARB adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan, which details specific GHG emission reduction measures that target specific GHG emissions sources. While none of the Scoping Plan measures are applicable to the proposed project, nevertheless, project-related GHG emissions would be reduced as a result of several AB 32 Scoping Plan measures. The Scoping Plan considers a range of actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market based mechanisms (e.g., cap-and-trade system). Some examples include the following:

• Mobile-source GHG emissions reduction measures

• Pavley emissions standards (19.8% reduction)

• Low carbon fuel standard (7.2% reduction)



• Vehicle efficiency measures (2.8% reduction)

Energy production related GHG emissions reduction measures:

• Natural gas transmission and distribution efficiency measures (7.4% reduction)

• Natural gas extraction efficiency measures (1.6% reduction)

• Renewables (electricity) portfolio standard (33.0% reduction)

These reductions in mobile-source and energy production GHG emissions would occur in addition to the project-specific GHG emissions reductions discussed below. The proposed project would be designed to meet Silver LEED certification requirements. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the AB 32 goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020. Currently no other GHG reduction plan (i.e., SCAG, SCAQMD, County, or City) applies to the proposed project.

Project construction would generate GHG emissions through the use of on-site heavy-duty construction equipment and off-site vehicle trips generated from construction workers, as well as haul/delivery trucks that travel to and from the project site. With respect to the project’s operations-period emissions, it is important to note that the regional mobile-source emissions (the overwhelming majority of GHG emissions) related to emergency response vehicles would occur regardless of project development. This new facility would simply allow the City of Los Angeles to manage existing emergency response vehicle assets better. As such, “project-related” mobile-source emissions do not include emissions related to emergency response vehicle activity.

As shown in Table 3, the proposed project’s annual GHG emissions under business as usual (BAU) conditions are estimated to be 368 metric tons CO2e. These estimates reflect emissions from all construction and operation activity. To put this number into perspective, statewide CO2e emissions for year 2009 were estimated to be 456.8 million metric tons.

Table 3: Estimate of Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Project Emissions Sources

Annual CO2e Emissions (metric tons)

Construction Emissions (30 -ear amortization) 9

Operations Emissions – Mobile 117

Operations Emissions – Area Sources <1

Operations Emissions – Energy Sources 194

Operations Emissions – Waste Conveyance 8

Operations Emissions – Waste Water Treatment 40

Project Emissions Annual Total 368



Percent Reduction below BAU --

The proposed project will be designed for Silver certification by the LEED program for sustainable design. These design features will reduce GHG emissions to lower levels than would otherwise be generated by a project that merely complies with standard building codes under BAU conditions. Therefore, impacts will be less-than-significant.

Specifically, the proposed project would incorporate sustainable opportunities in five categories, as described below.

Sustainable Sites

The project site is not considered prime farmland or parkland. It is not in proximity to any wetland or identified as habitat for any species on the state or federal threatened or endangered lists. The site’s location would allow alternative means of transportation possible and would allow a pedestrian-oriented connection to the surrounding neighborhood community. Furthermore, filtering stormwater runoff would help to lessen pollution of natural waterways downstream. Finally, the proposed project would include high albedo material for the hardscape and roof, which would help reduce the overall heat island effect which translates to less demand for energy used for cooling.

Water Efficiency

The proposed project use highly efficient plumbing fittings and fixtures. In addition, it would reduce outdoor water use by 50% through water-wise landscaping plan that incorporates native and adaptive species as well as the use of highly efficient irrigation equipment.

Energy and Atmosphere

The proposed project would be designed to reduce the amount of solar heat gain during the summer through building orientation and window light shelves, including different window treatments for different exposures. The building would further reduce the amount of energy consumed by incorporating highly efficient HVAC, lighting systems, and water heating systems to reduce the total energy demand. Additionally, an area has been reserved on the roof for future installation of photovoltaic arrays. Lastly, during the commissioning process at the end of construction, the building’s systems would be tested and evaluated to ensure all the systems specified will perform as designed.

Materials and Resources

Products and materials that are sustainably grown, produced and transported locally, and of course those containing a high degree of recycled content (reference recycled-content list) would be used. The proposed project stipulates a goal of 95% reduction and recycling of waste generated during the entire building process.



Indoor Environmental Quality

Natural daylight and outdoor views would be provided for all of the regularly occupied spaces in the facility. Additionally, low–VOC products including paints, sealants, wood products, flooring systems, and ceiling systems, be incorporated into the design to keep indoor and outdoor pollutants controlled.

In addition to these five categories the proposed project would also include features for the categories of innovation and priority. No mitigation measures are required.

H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or a less-than-significant impact (refer to Appendix A). A search of available environmental records was conducted on July 2, 2012, by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) for the address 14614 West Aetna Street, Van Nuys, CA 91411. The project site was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. Furthermore, the project site is not listed in the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker system, which includes leaking underground fuel tank sites; the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups Program or the Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Data Management System, which includes CORTESE sites; or the Environmental Protection Agency’s database of regulated facilities. Reference: 35 (EDR). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the entire block bounded by Vesper Avenue, Oxnard Street, Cedros Avenue and Aetna Street in 2007 (Reference 45. Dames & Moore, 1999). Historical research, document review, and site assessment activities were conducted April 1, 2007, through April 24, 2007.

In summary, the following items are noted:

o In general, the block was vacant land from at least 1918 through 1923. The block was occupied by the LADWP by 1926. The block uses by LADWP included stock room, pipe storage yard, repair shop, blacksmith shop, auto shed, bunkhouses, supply room, auto repair shop, maintenance shop, auto washing, and wood making. The block continued to have similar usage through at least 1960. By 1976, the majority of the structures at the block appeared to have been demolished and the western portion of the block was vacant land. The eastern portion of the block appeared to be a paved parking area covered with numerous vehicles and/or machinery. An office building was constructed on the western portion of the block around 1988.

o Based on the former block uses (repair shop, blacksmith shop, and auto repair shop



on the eastern portion of the block, and maintenance shop and auto washing on the central portion of the block) from at least 1926 through approximately 1960, there is a moderate likelihood that metals and other contaminants are present in the soils beneath these areas.

o A 1926 Map provided by Jones & Stokes, entitled City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Bureau of Waterworks and Supply, shows a “gas pump” in the northeastern portion of the block. This typically suggests the use of underground storage tanks (USTs). No documentation or other information regarding the possible location of historical USTs associated with this gas pump was found during this Phase I ESA.

o One 10,000-gallon gasoline UST was installed on the eastern portion of the block in 1947 by the LADWP. The LADWP also installed a 900-gallon kerosene UST on the eastern portion of the block, but the original installation date was not discovered during this assessment. In August 1990, the 10,000-gallon gasoline UST, 900-gallon kerosene UST, dispenser island, associated piping, and remote fill point were reportedly removed. Soil samples were collected from beneath the USTs, dispenser island, piping, and remote fill point locations; contamination was not discovered, with the exception of the remote fill point. Levels of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected above soil screening levels published by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Additional samples were collected in January 1991 at the remote fill point, and contamination was described (by Earth Technologies Corporation) as localized. The block received a No Further Action (NFA) letter from the City of Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) on March 12, 1991. The ESA notes the contradictory data sets from the fill point area, one from August 1990 which is indicative of subsurface contamination and the second data set from January 1991 which indicates no subsurface contamination. DWP indicated that the conflicting data sets could be explained by the different sampling techniques used at the different sampling times.

o From at least 1918 through 1965, the properties located north of Aetna Street and upgradient from the block were occupied by Standard Oil Company of California and Union Oil Company of California. Based on historical sources reviewed, these facilities may have been bulk chemical storage/distribution facilities. These facilities each contained a gasoline tank, kerosene tank, and a tank of distilled liquid. Because of the proximity to the site, there is a low to moderate likelihood that these facilities may have impacted the subject block.

o No other potential off-site sources of environmental concern were identified in the immediate site vicinity.

The ESA resulted in the following recommendations:

o A geophysical survey should be conducted in the northeastern portion of the block to further assess whether USTs or evidence of UST removal (i.e., former excavation) are present in the area of the “gas pump” labeled in the 1926 map. If



the geophysical survey indicates that a UST is present, it should be removed in accordance with LAFD regulations. Otherwise, soil samples should be collected from this portion and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons and total lead.

o Confirmation samples should be collected in the location of the former 10,000-gallon gasoline UST and former 900-gallon kerosene UST, which were present at the block for almost 50 years.

o Soil samples should be collected in the area of the former remote fill point and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons.

o Soil samples should be collected in the area of the former blacksmith shop on the eastern portion of the block and analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals.

o Soil samples should be collected in the area of the former repair shop, auto wash, and auto shed on the central and eastern portions of the block and analyzed for VOCs and metals.

o Soil samples should be collected along the northern boundary of the block, south of the former Union Oil Company and Standard Oil Company, and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons and VOCs.

2010 Phase II Report

A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the entire block was completed in 2010 (Reference 46, Tetra Tech, Inc., 2010). A total of 21 borings were made on the proposed Fire Station 39 site. Based on the data obtained during this investigation, chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) observed at the Site are likely from historical Site use including the former fuel storage/dispensing activities, repair shop, black-smith shop, auto wash, and woodworking and maintenance shops. However, there does not appear to be any current significant sources for COPCs detected at the Site. No COPCs were detected above comparison values for commercial/industrial land use in soil samples from the proposed fire station site3.

Geotechnical Engineering Report

A Geotechnical Engineering Report was completed in 2013 (Reference 47, City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, 2013). Seventeen exploratory borings were drilled on the site to depths ranging from 11 feet to 51 feet below the ground surface. An abandoned brick sub-structure was detected in the southeast corner of the lot. Samples from this area were tested for heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, PCBs, semi-volatile compounds (SVOCs), and recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons. Heavy metals were either not

3 COPCs in soil (benzo(a)pyrene) and soil gas (vinyl chloride) were detected above comparison values for commercial/industrial land use in a single sample (SS24) near the vacant office building at the western end of the block. This is outside of the proposed fire station site and will not be affected by the project.



detected in these samples or were at naturally-occurring concentrations. No recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons were detected. Very low levels (less than 1.0 mg/kg) of certain VOCs were detected but were below regulatory levels of environmental concern. Several SVOCs were also detected in low concentrations. One sample from 25 feet below ground detected an SVOC (Benzo(a)pyrene) at levels exceeding the California Human Health Screening Level for residential soil.

A contingency plan for identifying, handling and disposing of contaminated material in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, ordinances and formally adopted City standards is presented in Appendix E of the Geotechnical Engineering Report. This standard practice is considered part of the proposed project and therefore technically not “mitigation.” However, in deference to community concerns application of the contingency plan will be monitored as mitigation for this project (see Section V, HAZ-1).

I. Hydrology and Water Quality Initial screening determined that the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts on hydrology and water quality (please refer to Appendix A). The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a two-story fire station. Construction would require excavation to a depth of approximately five feet below the existing surface level. There is a risk of short-term, construction-related impacts on the quality of surface water runoff. During construction, hazardous materials would be used, including petroleum fuels and oils for construction equipment. Release of these materials could occur through spills or from runoff during storm events. As required by existing regulations, the City will prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP will be reviewed and approved by the responsible local, state, and/or federal agency and will establish a protocol for proper emergency procedures and handling and disposal of hazardous materials if an accidental spill occurs during construction. The SWPPP will outline BMPs related to fueling, vehicle washing, handling, and use, as well as storage of chemicals. Compliance with these measures would avoid potential construction impacts on water quality and, as such, impacts would be less than significant. The existing drainage patterns at the site would be restored upon the completion of construction. Operation of the proposed fire station has the potential to introduce water contaminants from vehicle washing, fueling, and other minor maintenance. All materials would be handled in accordance with applicable regulations to prevent significant hazards to the public or the environment. As such, operation of the proposed fire station related to discharged water would result in impacts that are less than significant.

J. Land Use and Planning Initial screening determined that the proposed project would result in no impacts related to land use and planning (please refer to Appendix A). The project site is within the Van Nuys-North Sherman Oaks Community Plan area. The proposed project is consistent with the community plan’s policies related to fire protection. The land use designation of the project site is Commercial Manufacturing with the corresponding zone of CM-1VL,



which allows for public service uses such as fire stations. The proposed project would not physically separate an established community nor would it conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

K. Mineral Resources Initial screening determined that the proposed project would result in no impacts on mineral resources of regional or statewide importance, as the project site is located in an urbanized area with no such mineral resources available (please refer to Appendix A).

L. Noise The proposed project would result in increased noise levels associated with grading and building of the structure, which could affect nearby sensitive receivers. Construction of the proposed project would take approximately 24 months to complete. Using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) and a list of typical construction equipment it was determined construction noise levels would be as high as 74 dBA Leq at the closest sensitive receiver located 100 feet from the project site. Noise levels of this magnitude would most likely be higher than existing noise levels. The City’s Municipal Code restricts construction to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. The proposed project would likely result in higher than average noise levels in the community during construction. However, the Bureau of Engineering Standard Project Specifications for Public Works Construction is designed to comply with the City’s General Plan Noise Element and related Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. Given that the proposed project would be implemented in accordance with these regulations, construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed fire station would involve increased noise when compared to the present use of the site. Fire department personnel are required by state law to sound the siren when exiting the station to respond to emergency calls; however, emergency responders make every effort to minimize use of the siren if the station is located in a residential setting. Emergency vehicle sirens are not subject to the limitations of noise ordinances because, by their very nature, they are intended to be unmistakably noticed. If the surrounding land use is converted to residential, the residents could expect to hear the sirens. Fire stations are located in all types of land use areas by necessity, and the brief noise of the sirens would not be considered a significant impact. A formal noise study for the project was conducted by the acoustics firm Veneklasen Associates in November and December of 2013. A report of the study and findings is attached as Appendix F. Acoustical experts measured noise levels produced by fire equipment in simulated and actual emergency responses at the existing fire station and the proposed new site. These measurements were then used to model the increase in community noise exposure levels due to possible future fire station operations at the existing and at the proposed new locations. The analysis indicates that noise impact at the



existing site is substantially higher than it would be at the proposed new site (see Table 4). Therefore, relocation of fire station operations to the proposed site would reduce noise impacts overall. The acoustical analysis indicated the fire station will elevate community noise exposure levels (CNEL) of the properties along Oxnard Street by 7 dBA, not considering any intervening structure. An increase in ambient noise level of less than 5 dBA would be less than significant. Any substantial wall breaking the line-of-sight between a receptor (in this case, presumed to be 5 feet above grade) and noise source (in this case a siren mounted about 3 feet above grade) can easily achieve a 5-dBA sound reduction4. The proposed wall along Oxnard Street is expected to prevent any significant project-related increase in ambient noise levels south of Oxnard Street. Therefore the proposed project will have a less than significant effect on ambient noise levels for sensitive receptors near the proposed site. Table 4. Noise from Fire Station Operations at Existing and Proposed Sites. Location

Modeled 1-Hour Leq Noise Levels (dBA)

Modeled CNEL (dBA)

Without FS-39

Operations

With FS-39

Operations Increase

Without FS-39

Operations

With FS-39

Operations Increase

Existing Site

City Hall 53 to 75 67 to 75 0 to 14 67 74 7 Lawyers' Offices 53 to 75 75 to 78 3 to 22 67 81 14 Sylvan and Sylmar 53 to 75 65 to 75 0 to 12 67 73 6

Proposed Site (without proposed wall along Oxnard St.)

Residences along Oxnard St.

52 to 65 65 to 68 3 to l3 65 72 7

Residences 100' south of Oxnard St.

49 to 62 60 to 63 1 to 11 62 67 5

Residences 200' south of Oxnard St.

46 to 59 54 to 59 0 to 8 59 62 3

The proposed project would add a limited new amount of traffic to the existing roadway infrastructure. Based on the traffic memo provided by Fehr Peers, new traffic would amount to 20 AM peak-hour trips and 21 PM peak-hour trips. Noise is not added arithmetically. For example, if one automobile produces an Sound Pressure Level (SPL) of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB—rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB due to the logarithmic nature of noise. Therefore doubling the amount of traffic on the existing roadway network would only account for a 3 dB increase in noise. Therefore, the addition of 20 AM peak-hour trips and 21 PM peak-hour trips would not likely register with respect to an increase in noise levels associated with traffic. Impacts would be less than significant.

4 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_barriers/design_construction/design/design03.cfm



The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has compiled typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment, which are commonly used as a reference for construction vibration level analysis. The vibration levels produced by construction equipment are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment

Approximate peak particle velocity at 25 feet (inches/second)

Approximate peak particle velocity at 100 feet (inches/second)

Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0095 Notes: Peak particle velocity measured at 25 feet unless noted otherwise. Root mean square amplitude ground velocity in decibels (VdB) referenced to 1 micro-inch/second. Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.

Vibration levels from construction equipment decrease with distance as they radiate from the source. The equation to determine vibration levels at a specific distance states that

PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)^1.5

where PPVref is the Peak Particle Velocity at a reference distance of 25 feet, and D is the distance from the equipment to the sensitive receptor (FTA 2006).

Groundborne vibration typically decreases rapidly with distance. Based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operation that would be used during project construction range from 0.076 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. At 100 feet from the source activity (closest sensitive receiver to the project site), PPV would likely be approximately 0.0095 inch per second.

Because neither the state nor the City of Los Angeles maintain regulatory standards for vibration sources, potential structural damage and human annoyance associated with vibration from construction activities were evaluated against California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) vibration limits (Table 6). A vibration level of 0.10 inches per second PPV was used to evaluate impacts on nearby receivers because this level represents the boundary between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible vibration as recognized by Caltrans and others. Because the predicted vibration levels from project construction would be well below applicable vibration thresholds, impacts from groundborne vibration or groundborne noise would be less than significant.

Table 6: Response of People and Effects on Structures from Continuous Vibration

Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (in/sec) Human Response Effect on Structures 0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type.



Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (in/sec) Human Response Effect on Structures

intrusion. 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible. Recommended upper level of the vibration to

which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected.

0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations begin to annoy people.

Virtually no risk of “architectural” damage to normal buildings.

0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings (this agrees with the levels established for people standing on bridges and subjected to relative short periods of vibration).

Threshold at which there is a risk of “architectural” damage to normal dwelling-houses with plastered walls and ceilings; special types of finish such as lining of walls, flexible ceiling treatment, etc., would minimize “architectural” damage.

0.4–0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous. vibrations and unacceptable to some people walking on bridges.

Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected from traffic, but would cause “architectural” damage and possibly minor structural damage.

Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, 2004.

Operation of the proposed fire station would involve heavy vehicles traveling along Oxnard Street, but the vehicles would not generate groundborne vibration or noise in excess of the vibration and noise generated by heavy vehicles (including trucks and buses) currently operating in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed fire station would involve the use of emergency vehicle sirens, but the short-term nature and infrequency of emergency vehicle sirens is anticipated to increase the community noise equivalent level (24-hour ambient noise levels with adjustments for evening and nighttime noise). Furthermore, traffic increases associated with the proposed project would be extremely small and would not result in a noticeable increase in noise at surrounding receivers. Impacts related to ambient noise would be less than significant. Construction of the proposed fire station would increase noise in the area, but would comply with the Bureau of Engineering Standard Project Specifications for Public Works Construction. Operationally, the use of emergency vehicle sirens would introduce a temporary and periodic noise increase at neighboring sites; however, the use of sirens would be infrequent and of short duration. Furthermore, Fire Department personnel would make efforts to minimize siren noise when passing through residential areas. Therefore, noise impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed fire station would be less than significant. The proposed project site is located approximately 2.5 miles from Van Nuys Airport and 5 miles from Bob Hope Airport, and does not lie within the master plan areas of either airport. Because the proposed fire station would not be located within two miles of an airport, it would not expose residents or workers in the area to airport noise in addition of the construction and operational noise occurring as a result of the project. No impact



related to this airport noise would occur. M. Population and Housing

Initial screening determined that the proposed project would result in no impact with respect to population and housing (please refer to Appendix A). The project would relocate current employees LAFD employees to the proposed location but would not induce population growth or displace any residents.

N. Public Services Initial screening determined that the proposed project would result in no impacts related to public services (please refer to Appendix A). The project would involve the construction and operation of a fire station, which would relocate existing area LAFD employees to the proposed new FS 39 location. The project would not involve housing a permanent residential population, and, therefore, would not result in an increase in demand for emergency services, schools, parks, or other public services.

O. Recreation Initial screening determined that the proposed project would result in no impact with respect to recreation (please refer to Appendix A). The project would not involve the construction of housing, and therefore would not increase the usage of existing recreational facilities or require the construction of new recreational facilities.

P. Transportation/Traffic According to the October 2012 Transportation Assessment Memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers, trip generation estimates (see Table 7) were developed based on existing travel behavior of FS 39, coupled with assumptions regarding future growth. The following trip generation forecast provides a conservative scenario of operational travel behavior at FS 39.



Table 7: Trip Generation Forecasts

Fire Station 39 Trip Generation

Trip Type Daily Trip Ends

AM Peak-Hour Trip

Ends PM Peak-Hour

Trip Ends Crew Start-of-Shift/End-of-Shift Trips 42 5 0 Emergency Response Trips 216 14 14 Crew Non-Emergency Trips 42 0 6 Deliveries 4 1 1 Total Trips 304 20 21 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.

Operation of the proposed project would add vehicles to the roadway network surrounding the project site, but the increase in traffic volumes would not result in substantial delays and would not reduce the overall effectiveness of the transportation network. For a project with as few project trips as FS 39, it is highly unlikely that a significant traffic impact would occur during project operation. Because the peak-hour trip generation from FS 39 would be below all of the thresholds identified by Los Angeles City and CMP guidelines, a more in-depth analysis of traffic conditions was not required. Therefore, impacts associated with operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. During the construction period, traffic would be generated by vehicles hauling debris and delivering items to the site as well as by vehicles of the approximately 10 construction workers who would travel to and from the site. Given the relatively short duration of the construction period, construction of the project would not reduce the effectiveness of the transportation network in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, traffic impacts related to construction of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Q. Utilities and Service Systems Initial screening determined that the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impact with respect to utilities and service systems (please refer to Appendix A). Existing utilities and services are capable of meeting the needs of the proposed project without overwhelming infrastructure capacity.



R. Mandatory Findings of Significance Based on the foregoing, it has been determined that: The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project does not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.



V. MITIGATION MEASURES The following describes measures incorporated into the project to reduce its effects to less than significant and briefly explains how each measure would reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level.

HAZ-1: Identifying, Handling and Disposal of Contaminated Material

The following measures apply to handling and disposing of stained or hydrocarbon-contaminated soils should they be encountered during site excavations, particularly at the 20-25 ft depth near the discovered cesspit structure. These measures will reduce hazards to the people or the environment from exposure to hazardous materials to less than significant.

Excavation of Contaminated Soils

The soils which have visible staining or an odor must be tested in the field by the contractor or qualified environmental subcontractor with an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) for volatile components, which require additional considerations in their handling Soil with OVA readings exceeding 50 ppm volatile organic compounds (probe held 3 inches from the excavated soil face), or which is visibly stained or has a detectable petrochemical odor should be stockpiled by the Contractor separately from uncontaminated soils. The stockpiles should be barricaded near the excavation area, away from drainage areas or catch basins, on an impermeable plastic liner (6 mil nominal thickness and tested at 100 psi strength). Caution must be taken to separate any contaminated soil from the remainder of the excavated material. If only a small amount of contaminated soil is encountered, it may be drummed in 55-gallon steel drums with sealing lids.

The soil will then be sampled in a random and representative manner. To establish waste classification, samples will then be analyzed for Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH), volatile organics (VOC), Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs, which were found in the exploration), Title 22 heavy metals, reactivity (pH), corrosivity and toxicity. The number of samples will depend upon the volume of material removed, one sample for approximately every ton of soil. Storage space available at the site and neighborhood sensitivity will determine the amount of soil that can be stockpiled.

If volatile compounds are present at concentrations exceeding 50 ppm, an AQMD permit will be required, which most likely will require control of vapor, such as covering the stockpiles with plastic sheeting or wetting with water or a soap solution. The Contractor shall obtain all permits.

Suspected contaminated soil samples can be taken to a State-certified environmental laboratory or tested in the field with a mobile lab and technician using infrared spectrometry with EPA Method 1664 for TRPH. Materials with elevated levels of TRPH, metals or other regulated contaminants will require handling by workers who have been adequately trained



for health and safety aspects of hazardous material handling.

Removal and Classification of Excavated Soil

Any contaminated material (soil, asphalt, brick, burned material, concrete, or debris) that is to be hauled off the site is considered a "waste product" and must be classified as hazardous or nonhazardous waste under all criteria by both State and Federal Codes prior to disposal. If the waste soil or other material is determined hazardous, a hazardous waste manifest will prepared by the Contractor or its qualified representative and the material transported to an appropriate class of facility for recycling or landfill disposal by a registered hazardous material transporter. If the soil is nonhazardous but still exceeds levels that can be returned to the excavation, a less costly nonhazardous transporter and soil recycling facility may be used if no hazardous constituents are present above their respective action levels.

The Bureau of Contract Administration Inspector for the project shall be notified of all contaminated material removals, and will document all quantities, help insure soil segregation and ensure copies of signed manifests are retained for the City records.

Currently, there are no established regulatory limits or threshold values whereby soil with TRPH only can be classified as hazardous, although the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 provides limits for the volatile hydrocarbon constituents (including solvents), PCBs and metals. Therefore, until new criteria are released by the State or Federal agencies, soil levels of 100 ppm TRPH (crude oil, waste oil and diesel), 10 ppm gasoline, and 1/50/50/50/ ppm benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, respectively, are proposed. Soil contaminated with hydrocarbons at values less than these values may be backfilled, used for fill or paved over. A soil recycling facility should accept the material containing TRPH, assuming it is not hazardous due to metals or other contaminants, at a cost of $40 to $50 per ton. Depending upon the results of the sampling, this soil material is recycled into buiiding foundation material, road pavement, landfill cover, etc. A recycling facility is preferred to landfills, as the latter raise future liability issues for the City should the landfill require remediation. GEO has a list of addresses and telephone numbers of local recyclers available. A Class Ill (municipal) landfill may also accept soils with only TRPH contamination above 1,000 but below certain levels specified by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, upon approval of an application (Report of Waste Discharge) with that agency. The disposal costs at a Class Ill landfill are approximately $35 per ton. All excavated material moved offsite must be manifested, transported by a registered hauler, and disposed of in the proper class landfill or recycler. Transportation costs to the Class II or Ill facilities are estimated at $5 per ton within the Los Angeles area. These facilities can be contacted ahead of time regarding their acceptance of SVOCs.

Health and Safety Issues

The contractor shall be licensed for hazardous materials handling and hauling or have a qualified licensed subcontractor on call. The workers exposed to or handling contaminated soils shall have sufficient health and safety training, consistent with OSHA Hazardous Waste Operation Standards (29 CFR 1910.120), and Cal-OSHA "Hazardous Waste



Operations & Emergency Response" (8 CCR 5192).

The contractor, qualified subcontractor or an industrial hygienist shall prepare a site- specific health and safety plan. The plan shall appoint a site safety officer and establish responses to heavy metals, solvents, SVOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons, which may be encountered during excavations. Trapped pockets of methane and hydrogen sulfide gas and areas of low oxygen are common in excavations of this area, and are usually mitigated in confined excavations with proper monitoring and ventilation. The plan should specify particular action levels for each contaminant found during exploratory drilling and suspected to occur along the alignment and provide guidelines for personal safety and public protection, including monitoring and appropriate personal protective equipment needed on the jobsite during all phases of excavation of the project. The responsibility for maintenance and calibration of monitoring gear should be specified. The goal is to prevent health-significant inhalation and dermal exposure to hydrocarbon SVOC- or metal-contaminated soils, explosions and fires and to provide methods of decontaminating workers and equipment if contamination levels exceed those cited in the plan. Preventing unauthorized entry into the work and stockpile areas shall be included.

NOI-1: Oxnard St Wall

The following measure will prevent fire station operations from causing a significant increase in community noise exposure levels in adjacent residential properties.

The project shall include a wall in the existing Oxnard Street public right of way, between the sidewalk on the south side of Oxnard Street and the abutting residential properties. The wall shall extend from between Vesper Avenue to the existing driveway that provides access from Oxnard Street to 5945 Tiara Street. The wall shall be no less than six feet tall so as to break the line of site between a person of average height standing on the residential property and sirens mounted on fire equipment at the centerline of Oxnard Street and thereby limit project-related increase in ambient noise levels south of Oxnard Street to no more than 5 dBA above pre-existing levels.

The City shall not be required to construct the wall adjacent to a property if the owner of that property objects.

VI. NAME OF PREPARER

A. Original Initial Study Prepared by:

ICF International

Lee Lisecki Paulette Franco Jonathan Riker Rusty Whisman



Tamseel Mir Mark Robinson Jessica Feldman Meghan Potter Peter Hardie Keith Cooper Tanya Jones

B. Coordination/Consultation with:

Catalina Hernandez Environmental Specialist II Environmental Management Group Bureau of Engineering Department of Public Works Reza Shahmirzadi Senior Project Manager Bond Programs Division Bureau of Engineering Department of Public Works Curt Klafta Fire Battalion Chief Los Angeles Fire Department


INITIAL STUDY LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF ENGINEERING VII. DETERMINATION – RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

A. Summary

The initial study concluded that the proposed project would result in no impacts and/or less-than-significant impacts on aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems.

B. Recommended Environmental Documentation

On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.

Reviewed By: ___________________________ Catalina Hernandez Environmental Specialist II Approved By: Deborah Weintraub, AIA, LEEDAP Interim City Engineer By: ___________________________ James E. Doty Environmental Affairs Officer Environmental Management Group



Appendices

APPENDIX A ................................................... Environmental Screening Checklist APPENDIX B ....................................... Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Report APPENDIX C .......................................................................... EDR Phase I Report APPENDIX D ..................................................... Natural History Museum Records APPENDIX E .................. Transportation Assessment of Van Nuys Fire Station 39 APPENDIX F ................................................... Fire Station 39 Acoustical Analysis


INITIAL STUDY LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF ENGINEERING VIII. REFERENCES The following sources were used in the preparation of this document. Sources not available via the Internet are available by appointment for review at the offices of the Bureau of Engineering, 1149 South Broadway, Suite 600, Los Angeles. 1. American Public Works Assoc. S. California Chpt. Standard Specifications for Public

Works Construction. [Std Specs]

2. American Public Works Assoc. S. California Chpt. Work Area Traffic Control Handbook. [WATCH]

3. California Air Resources Board. Assembly Bill 32. Available online at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm 2013.

4. California Building Standards Commission, 1994. Uniform Building Code, [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]. Table 18-1-B. [UBC]

5. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1997.Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Van Nuys 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Available online at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/evalrpt/vn_eval.pdf. [Dept. of Cons.]

6. California Department of Transportation. n.d. Caltrans Earth. Mapping resource. [Caltrans]. Available online at http://earth.dot.ca.gov/

7. California Dept. of Conservation, 1997. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model. [Agric Land Eval]

8. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Important Farmland in California, January 2009. [Farmland Map] Available online at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/statewide/2006/fmmp2006_08_11.pdf

9. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Map. Revised 1997 and Supplemented 1999. [CDC 42] Available online at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/index.htm

10. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Mines and Geology. Geologic Map of California: Los Angeles Sheet. [Geol Map LA]

11. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Mines and Geology. Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones. [Seismic Zones] Available online at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_vn.pdf

12. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information & Observation


http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm

http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/evalrpt/vn_eval.pdf

http://earth.dot.ca.gov/

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/index.htm

http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_vn.pdf


Database. Available online at http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/[BIOS]

13. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database. [CNDDB] Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/

14. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Laws and Regulations Directing Environmental Review and Species Take Programs. Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/regcode.html

15. California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation. California Historical Resources Information System. South Central Coastal Information Center. [CHRIS]

16. California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. [EnviroStor] Available online at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/default.asp

17. California Secretary for Resources. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. [CEQA Guidelines] Available online at http://www.califaep.org

18. California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker Database. Available online at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

19. Caltrans. Caltrans Earth. Available online at http://earth.dot.ca.gov/. [Caltrans Earth]

20. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. 2012a. Letter to Permitted Waste Hauler from Karen A. Coca. Subject: Updated Recycling Rates for Certified Mixed Waste Processors. 24 January 2012. [BOS].

21. City of Los Angeles, City Council. Municipal Code. [LAMC] Available online at http://amlegal.com/library/ca/losangeles.shtml

22. City of Los Angeles, City Council. Protected Tree Ordinance. Los Angeles Municipal Code. Section 1. Subdivision 12 of Subsection A of Section 12.21. [Tree Ord.] Available online at http://amlegal.com/library/ca/losangeles.shtml

23. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of City Planning. General Plan. Including community plans and technical elements. [General Plan] Available online at http://planning.lacity.org/

24. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of City Planning. Zoning Information and Map Access System (ZIMAS). Available online at http://zimas.ci.la.ca.us.

25. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Environmental Affairs. GREEN LA. An Action Plan to Lead the Nation in Fighting Global Warming. May 2007. [GREEN LA] Available online at http://www.ci.la.ca.us/EAD/pdf/GreenLA_CAP_2007.pdf

26. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Environmental Affairs. L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles. 2006. [Thresholds]


http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/regcode.html

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/default.asp

http://www.califaep.org/

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

http://amlegal.com/library/ca/losangeles.shtml

http://amlegal.com/library/ca/losangeles.shtml

http://zimas.ci.la.ca.us/

http://www.ci.la.ca.us/EAD/pdf/GreenLA_CAP_2007.pdf


Available online at http://www.ci.la.ca.us/EAD/programs/thresholdsguide.htm

27. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. Additions and Amendments to the 2006 Edition and 2008 Cumulative Supplement of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Available online at http://eng.lacity.org/techdocs/speclibrary/index.htm

28. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. Standard Plans. [Std Plans] Available online at http://eng.lacity.org/techdocs/stdplans/

29. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. NavigateLA. Available online at http://boemaps.eng.ci.la.ca.us.

30. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. Policies for the Installation and Preservation of Landscaping and Trees on Public Property. Special Order SO18-0372. Adopted by City Council September 21, 1971. [Tree Policy] Available online at http://eng.lacity.org/techdocs/sporders/index.cfm?dsp_year=1972

31. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Public Works. Tree Removal Mitigation Agreement Between the Bureaus of Engineering and Street Maintenance. Adopted by the Board of Public Works October 15, 1990. [BOE/BSS Tree Policy]

32. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Recreation and Parks. Urban Forest Program – Revised October 2004. Available online at http://www.laparks.org/dos/forest/urbanforestprogram.htm

33. City of Los Angeles. Dept. of City Planning. General Plan. Safety Element. Inundation and Tsunami Hazard Areas map (Exhibit G) (adopted by City Council November 26, 1996) [Inundation Map] Available online at http://planning.lacity.org/

34. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, 2007 Annual Report on the Countywide Siting Summary Plan and Countywide Siting Element, June 2008. Available online at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/swims/default.asp

35. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2012. EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck. 14614 West Aetna Street, Van Nuys, CA 91411.

36. Fehr and Peers, 2012. Transportation Assessment Memorandum for the Proposed Fire Station 39. October 2012.

37. ICF International, 2012. Van Nuys Fire Station 39-Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report. November 13, 2012.

38. McLeod, Samuel A. 2012, Paleontological Resources for the proposed Van Nuys Fire Station #39 Project, Los Angeles, California. Letter Report from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 29 November 2012.

39. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.


http://www.ci.la.ca.us/EAD/programs/thresholdsguide.htm

http://boemaps.eng.ci.la.ca.us/


[AQMD Handbook]

40. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Draft Guidance Document –Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.

41. U.S. Dept. Interior Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Overlays for U.S. Dept. Interior Geological Survey. 7.5-minute Map Series (Topographic). [Wetlands Map]

42. U.S. Dept. Interior Geological Survey. 7.5-minute Map Series (Topographic). [USGS Quad]

43. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Community Panel number 060137C1315F. Available online at http://navigatela.lacity.org/index01.cfm [FIRM].

44. Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster, Spring 1990. Upper Los Angeles River Area Groundwater Contour Map. [Groundwater Map]

45. Dames & Moore, 2007. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 14601 and 14651 Oxnard Street, Van Nuys, California.

46. Tetra Tech, Inc., 2010. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, LADWP Oxnard Street Facility. 14651 Oxnard Street, Van Nuys, California.

47. City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, 2013. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Fire Station #39, 14614 West Aetna Street (Tract: TR 1200, Block: 70, Lot: FR2/FR3), Los Angeles, California.



[this page left blank intentionally]


initial study/mitigated negative declaration...the new facility would replace the existing fs 39,...

Documents